skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
it is a problem - but it's not facebook's problem, it's your problem for not understanding the settings (obviously i do not mean you, i mean users). projects like beacon were facebook's problem, and they were wrong for doing that. if your using a product and dont understand how it works, then you only have yourself to blame. example (dated, i know):

Edit, I found a better example:

http://willmoffat.github.com/FacebookSearch/?q=playing+hooky...
This has been proposed, actually:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/bill-would-force-...

It's missing a critical component, however: it doesn't include a bond requirement on the part of the suing company. Therefore it only helps so much as patent trolls typically sue from a shell company with no assets.
If you're a regular user it's not exposed. Links are shown with their full url on the site and the user is usually redirected before tthey have a chance to notice they're being sent through t.co
Google will charge the survey initiators, take its cut, pay premium content providers with the balance.
If you had the images on your site, would you expect this to raise your Google Page Rank?
Clearly society wants AAA games and blockbuster movies, people spend huge amounts of money playing / watching them. Society has already found a way to pay for them, it's called copyright.

I would be interested in a survey of the public, which said we can dump copyright, in return for losing almost all high cost games, movies and TV. I would guess the majority of people would vote to keep copyright.
Einstein letter on God to be auctioned on eBay
Did you mean 1998? Linux did not exist until '91.
Meta: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-...
Its surprising to see that thenextweb has written such a long article about t.co being down.

i guess its easy to write up stuff :))
I would agree with the envelope analogy if the message was not encoded in plain text. Say base64--an intermediate has to go through a slight process to read it, like opening an envelope.

Mostly, it's worse than a postcard. It'd be like if every letter carrier makes a copy of the postcard, then is supposed to discard theirs once the next person has their copy. There is zero guarantee that any of the several copies were actually discarded, and it's highly improbable that they were erased securely by any of the intermediates.

Knowing that the messages are transmitted in plain text across at least two mail servers (often more), and across several intermediate ISPs, it is ... unlikely... for an informed person to have an expectation of privacy in email.

Encryption solves all these problems, but we all know that's not in mainstream use. Not even signing!
Thank you for a detailed reply, nice to read.

A small hack could be using a very modern sophisticated clang compiler, to produce an optimized assembly for an idiom you need, coded in C. Like clang -S a.c then you change and hard-code what you like.

Yes, it is a non-trivial task, so, it might make you much better engineer, like a difficult journey into unknown improves you.
I was looking at android devices with a view to making a purchase this very weekend. There seems to me to be very little choice, just lots of different brands telling you there is choice. The variance in pricing is very close and the budget conscious are poorly servered. I didn't end up buying anything.
Richard P. Feynman on pseudo science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

BTW, I come from the field of robotics and there, hardly any published result is replicated either.
It is necessary to create an aura of legitimacy.

As I was reading through the legalese for the MPLA, I realized that the typical practices of the legal profession have about as much to do with reality as Dungeons and Dragons. They are playing games with words, the only difference is that they're dealing not with game pieces but with your very life.
Twitter wants to route links through their servers for at least two reasons:

1. Analytics and monitoring. (Google's results page uses the same technique.)
2. Disabling malicious and unwanted links.
It is very much exposed: The regular user can't click on links on Twitter because it's down.
" I still make mistakes."

There's a really interesting documentary about Edsger Dijkstra in which they looked back at his old notebooks. He wrote by hand, and when a correction was needed he'd tape a segment on top of it, and sometimes youd see stacks of these corrections. When all of the fragments were removed, the top version almost always was same as the original.

The point of the anecdote is that most professional developers I've met are incredibly disciplined and take time to understand the intricacies of what they are working with before starting. The types of mistakes that Typescript can catch stem either from carelessness (like mistyping) or memory loss (forgetting a function signature), but those can be obviated.

"I have found that type hints, code completion, intellisense, helps me discover mistakes sooner, often before I make them"

Code completion shields you from spelling mistakes. Intellisense saves you the need to remember the signature of various functions (most of which you should know anyway). Type hints help with nondescript names, but hopefully your variable names have the types implicitly embedded (e.g. 'count' or 'cnt' are almost always integer types)

I'm not saying most people don't suffer from these problems from time to time, but most professional developers I know are very careful and write good code the first time.

"Often, BTW, you are using a class (or JS function, whatever) that you didn't write"

Again, most APIs use sufficiently descriptive names that there should be little confusion. If there is ever a point where something is not clear from the outside, oftentimes there are issues on the inside that should be addressed (minimization notwithstanding).

I think Typescript misses the point. A high quality linter for javascript could pick up on most of the issues that TS picks up on. Furthermore, there are some quirks that break compatibility, which does to an extent suggest hijacking.
indeed, aren't specifics, wonderful.

However, I do think that authentication is where people may believe they can stop, forgetting or maybe not understanding, that authentication really doesn't do much, without an authorization system.
Static types are attractive to me. I haven't tried Typescript for other reasons:

1) I use CoffeeScript for the concise code, which Typescript doesn't have. The trade is a lot of verbosity for static types - verbosity above the static type declarations.

2) I don't know much about Typescript's type inference system, especially how it will develop. Not well documented, no vision. (Clojure's vision is one that I would consider exemplar.)

3) Suppose there are cases where Typescript is more appropriate. I don't know whether it is easy to expose functions to normal Javascript (while retaining types). Typed subsets of a language have often been problematic to expose to untyped parts of a language when more powerful inferences are being used (e.g. Typed Racket doesn't play well with Racket Macros). Especially if you want to pass typed => untyped => typed.

4) There's a cost to learning a new language. There's an overhead to remember an additional language.

5) Chances are, someone else is going to try it. Someone who actually has a good use case. If I wait, maybe they will talk/blog about it, and I can make a more informed decision later.

I haven't been persuaded to try Typescript in a substantial piece of code. The blog posts, they don't really address the issues of concern to me. Not yet.
I normally hate youtube links. But I upvoted this one because you really have to see it. And the reaction of the unhappy monkey really does express so eloquently how quickly we can become unhappy with a perfectly satisfactory deal simply because we become aware that someone else is getting a better one for the same work.
It could be as simple as a flag on the API: Do you want shortened links and a guarantee that the message is less than 140 characters, or full link, with a risk that it will "spill over". As most (all?) clients expand links anyway, they'd be choosing the latter.
Which is why we shouldn't use centralized services like Twitter. I'm rooting for http://tent.io/ myself.
You write as if you've somehow refuted or contradicted my words, but you haven't. I recommend looking again, more closely, at what I said. I choose words carefully.

But I do understand the idea that religious people can be compassionate and give money away. So can atheists. So can intelligent people. So can both more and less educated people. It's orthogonal. And I never cited religion. And I was speaking in general terms based on direct, personal observation. Also I for one do not engage in "binary" political thinking -- not when I'm actually thinking internally -- though it's often useful when speaking in order to average out details and identify patterns and then express them concisely in public conversation.

And as an additional point, if by 'mission' you mean a religious mission, then I'd say that I don't consider that to be a good thing. It's a bad thing. It spreads superstition, fear, make believe, childish mental states, obedience to arbitrary authority, silly rituals and fuzzy irrational thinking. Yes it also teaches relaxing and addictive chants and tunes, and feel good phrases. And the good parts, anything dealing with peace, compassion, charity, with community interaction, can all be done without the negative that comes from the religious baggage attached to it. Also, like your complaint about binary thinking being a bad thing. I don't think education is a binary quality. You're not either educated or not. There are many intermediate degrees and shades of grey, and types. So while I do think someone can be somewhat educated and religious, I don't think they're extremely well educated or intelligent. At least not both. Otherwise one would see that that particular emperor wears no clothes. But of course this is just the conclusion reached by many of us, not all of us. To each his own.
Search Facebook Public Statuses
It could also be true if the abstraction lays bare optimizations not available (readily enough) to the C compiler. While this wouldn't make X faster than C as languages (what does that mean, anyway?), it could make an X compiler produce faster code than the best C compiler.
Can you provide a citation for your opposing view? Here's a more recent quote from the Supreme Court:

Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an author's creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy
Google search does not use the same technique.
Well spotted! I missed that during the live webcast, there was absolutely no mention of it. Some people at SpaceX should be pretty hard to play poker against, there was 0 indication that they were aware of any issues.

Bringing a RAID approach to engine configurations seems to have paid off quite handsomely.
However, when working with good type inference (i.e. Haskell)... 1: it's possible to relax on the discipline a little; mental resources are limited (at least for me). 2: typed-based dispatch; refactoring based on static types; etc.
I disagree with your Android example:

- It's not technically true that you can't make money selling Linux, but even if it wasn't, it's a red herring; Google could certainly sell Android. The reason they don't has to do with their business model, nothing else.

- It's not true that you can't make money selling it to cell phone developers. What you do is not charge for current software, but for future development. As an employee of a company which sells GPL licensed software, I can tell you it's a very viable business model.

- Google could also charge for access to their services, including App Store.

Secondly, the idea that you are spied upon because it's free is very naive; how do you think Apple's Ad network (iAd) can target Demographics, Application preferences, Music passions, Movie, TV and audiobook genre interests and even Location? Guess what: the consumer is paying with cash and their privacy.
> Violent video games are generally not meant for children, so why study their affects on children?

First, a few points:

* Many things are "not meant" for teenagers, yet teens acquire (or do) them anyways. Examples include: alcohol, tobacco, watching R-rated movies, etc.

* You may have forgotten just how old kids in highschool are. Specifically, these are teenagers from 14-15 (Grade 9) to 17-18 (Grade 12). While no one under 18 should be playing M-rated games, these individuals are hardly babies.

To answer your bigger question: studies like this are important because teens are a huge video game demographic and are still developing (mentally and physically) during their highschool years. Only now are we seeing such an abundance (and easy access to) video games of all kinds, including violent video games. We must have more such long-term studies in order to understand any potential risks for Jimmy if he spends 3+ hours every day playing a game in which his character "kills" humans (who are mostly foreigners and often in gruesome ways).

You are welcome to mention parental responsibility and voluntary rating guidelines (and these are good points). I'm also against the terrible, blanket attempts at regulating violent video games we've seen in California and other states. However if we discover a link between violent video games and long-term increases in teen aggression then I see nothing wrong with strengthening legislation concerning the sale of M-rated games to minors.
Or when presented with a problem, one could do a patent search, license the existing technology, and build something even more innovative.
Nooo, old news, life is too short..
Watched the first 2 or 3 videos,but i had a problem submitting my answers.It would reject my answer and fail to move to the next section of the lecture while at the same time not allowing me to click on either the hints or solutions tab.I was frustrated enough to logout.
I'm typing this on a T400 because my usual T61/T60 hybrid has a cracked GPU BGA and I don't have a torch or a heat gun.

Comparing and contrasting the two machines, it's shocking what a step backwards in design the T400 is.

I think everyone knows about the terrible screen already, and I'd cut Lenovo some slack but for the fact that when IBM needed better screens, they founded IDTech as a joint venture with Chi Mei. Lenovo could at least push its suppliers around a bit; I think they have the volume for it.

The audio ports of the T400 are on the front, rather than the side. This isn't much of a problem at a desk, but using it as a laptop, it means headphone plugs often interfere with the user's body or clothing. It's especially bad using the machine in a reclined position. I'd look for a pcmcia sound card or bluetooth headphones if I had to use this machine for long.

The machine is bulky for the screen size. There's nearly an inch of bezel around the left, top and bottom of the screen. The bottom seems a bit reasonable; the inverter for the backlight has to go somewhere, and placing the screen too low puts the user's hands in front of the screen in some working positions. I see no excuse for the rest of it; the 14" 4:3 T61 had the same keyboard and much less wasted space.

The USB ports are vertical. I currently have a USB 3G stick inserted, and I can't set the machine on a flat surface without risking damage because it protrudes below the base of the laptop. It's not an unusually large 3G stick; even some flash drives have this problem.

I haven't spent any time with the newest Thinkpads, but models from a couple generations ago are shockingly worse than their immediate predecessors. Incidentally, it seems to have happened about the time they dropped the IBM branding, though Lenovo owned the Thinkpad division for several generations prior to that.
That's one of the few chips that I still remember the pin-out for decades later. And a bunch of 74's. I don't know how many of those I consumed but they were a pretty steady item on the shopping list.

RIP.
Google+ se souvient de Steve Jobs
Les abonnés de Google+ ont eu fort à faire durant la journée du 4 octobre 2012. Ils ont évoqué Steve Jobs, s’en prennent à Apple et parlent du débat présidentiel US entre Barack Obama et Mitt Romney.
It is quite close, actually. "not even remotely" is a very strong statement.

There are tricks that let them do this 8 bytes at a time (on AMD64, 4 bytes on x86), but that doesn't change the fact that in order to compare two 128KB strings which are equal, you actually have to read 2*128KB from memory and compare each single byte (in groups of 8, if you are lucky enough with your alignments and instruction set).

Different abstractions, such as Python's strings, can very often do this comparison with almost no memory access:

(a) if both strings are interned, it is enough to do a pointer comparison.

(b) if the length is not equal, the strings are not equal - a one word comparison.

(c) if both strings have been hashed before (quite likely), you can tell they are different if their hash is different - a one word comparison.

(d) if length is equal, and hash is (equal or uncomputed), you will have to do the comparison.

Whether this trade-off is worthy depends on your application. If most of your strings are 7-characters or less (as is often the case for software dealing with e.g. stock tickers), then the C approach on 64-bit archs wins hands down: you should actually have all the strings in-place because a pointer takes more memory and causes contention. However, if your strings tend to be 100 bytes or above, and many of them have equal prefixes, the Python approach wins hands down.
What's the difference?

* User browses on Twitter, clicks link in tweet pointing to t.co, is redirected off to the page where they wanted to go.

* User searches on Google, clicks link in search result pointing to google.com, is redirected off to the page where they wanted to go.

Admittedly it only happens with half of the search results of the first page (I think; it seems to vary), but it's very much the same technique.
They do. They are on cheaper contracts and available for less. I would say that it's a fairly safe bet to suggest that very little of, for arguments sake lets say the S3 sells sim free or off contract. It is also fair to say that Android devices got to their current position via heavy subsidies and cheap contracts. Giving the carriers the power that they wanted was just about the stupidest move Google has ever pulled. They really screwed consumers with that move.
On the google note, their URL redirects have dramatically slowed down my experience. They seems to have a very slow redirect.
The whole native mobile app kind of parallels with Flash on the web back in the day (funny how I could say "back in the day" with Flash). Flash -- from what I understood -- used to give a richer UX that HTML/CSS couldn't. The only problem was that Flash was one more thing that needed to be installed on top of the browser.

However, as JS frameworks matured and HTML5/CSS3 was introduced, the browser offered comparable UX, which ultimately lead to Flash losing relevance. I still think mobile browsers have a long way to go in terms of performance. However, this article suggests that native apps are experiencing the same market resistance as Flash once did. Once mobile browsers catch up, we might just experience another tech renaissance ala Web 2.0.
Just to clarify, death in WoW is something that happens all the time. It's very unlikely that it causes anyone more than a minute worth of inconvenience in this case, and certainly less than it would to take the servers down to apply a backup.
I really like the concept developed in one of the comments (I can reuse it here, right ?) of evolutionary vs revolutionary.

Further than the "previous art" rule, that should be a criteria in accepting new patents : is it revolutionary ? Yes ? Congrats, as a reward, you can benefit of exclusive exploitation.

Of course, all the problem is to distinguish both. I suppose one way would be this one : when you claim a patent, there is a six month freeze time when it's not made public. If after six month nobody has used or mentioned any similar idea (similar enough to make a patent violation claim), you can have the patent.

This would encourage lot of technical writing that would produce lot of ideas in order to avoid patent locking, and real revolutionary ideas would be recognized as they are, instead of looking suspicious as all current patented ideas are.
If you sanitize input, it implies you're inserting the input into an execution environment. If possible, it's better to treat data as data.

In the Javascript eval case, it's definitely possible; just access the data through a variable instead of inserting it into the eval'ed code.
For most Twitter's users, it is not a mission critical service.

It could be regularly down for hours at a time with little to no effect.

They'll just come back later.
This is exactly the kind of emotionally-charged comment that is not conducive to a rational discussion.

Let's not "throw science under the bus" at all. In fact, there have been studies[1] which show violent crime decreases as access to violent video games increase.

[1]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8798927/Vi...
You end up with a self-consistent philosophy, but there are plenty of those around. It's not objectively any better than e.g. modern utilitarianism, and the moral positions that result align poorly with most people's moral intuitions.
> What you do is not charge for current software, but for future development. As an employee of a company which sells GPL licensed software, I can tell you it's a very viable business model.

It's a viable business model in the small, not when you're developing software for a huge market where a handful of customers can't bankroll future versions of the software.

> Secondly, the idea that you are spied upon because it's free is very naive; how do you think Apple's Ad network (iAd) can target Demographics, Application preferences, Music passions, Movie, TV and audiobook genre interests and even Location? Guess what: the consumer is paying with cash and their privacy.

The point is that when companies cannot sell the software directly, they need to rely on alternative monetization models. A lot of those monetization models involve privacy-invasion through advertising, etc. Paying for software doesn't eliminate that obviously, but rather when software can't be sold as a product the equilibrium moves to a very different place.
While I'm glad that everything worked out well for SpaceX, I would not be so quick to consider it a smashing success. Correcting for an ineffective engine is a fantastic feat of engineering, but consider that the engine obliterated itself due to some other unknown flaw. The bigger issue with blowouts like tonights is that the violent nature of the event can damage surrounding engines, or the failure could be caused from a common system. SpaceX was lucky that it was a corner engine that exploded, as it was least-likely to damage any of the other engines. Excellent redundancy engineering allowed them to continue the climb to orbit, but only after they got lucky.

Then again, it is unfair of me to make relatively uninformed declaratives about tonight's launch. The engine blowout could have been cause by an incredibly unlucky set of circumstances, and the engineers at SpaceX could have built a vehicle that survived a catastrophic failure that would have doomed any other craft to date.

Given what I've seen from SpaceX, I am positive that they will get to the bottom of the incident and have it corrected before their next launch.